Former DPP legislator Chou Po-lun's (
From a judicial perspective, Chou's sentencing is not a matter of political influence leading to a wrongful sentence. His accusation that five Supreme Court judges handed down their ruling without a careful review, his request for an extraordinary re-trial and a farewell party to see him off to jail were nothing more than an attempt to create a political future for himself once he gets out of jail. None of these things will have an impact on the justness of the judiciary.
Chou is one of the few serving legislators to be convicted and sent to jail in the past decade or so -- although he lost his seat last month when he was found guilty. During the KMT-era, the only ones to go to jail were former legislators Huang Hsin-chieh (
But Chou has been closely associated with President Chen Shui-bian (
But Chou is not the only leading light of the DPP to face legal problems because of corruption allegations. Yu Chen Yueh-ying (
In the KMT era the judiciary was always a political tool. The KMT leadership even allowed some politicians to get away after they were implicated in corruption cases. Former legislator Wu Tse-yuan (
The actions of the DPP administration, in contrast, have been a major improvement in terms of judicial independence. The party demanded Chou respect the judiciary's ruling while Yu Chen resigned as senior advisor to the president as soon as she was indicted.
The DPP was elected because the people resented the KMT's legacy of corruption. In the three years of DPP rule, there have been corruption cases at both the central and local government levels, such as the vote-buying scandal in the Kaohsiung City Council speaker's election. But the DPP has tried hard to avoid falling into the "black gold" quagmire. So far it has managed to keep itself clean fairly well -- despite allegations from opposition politicians.
Eradication of corruption and self-discipline will be key issues in next year's presidential election. Candidates who cannot rid themselves of "black gold" tar will not win the support of voters.
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other